RAPE CRISIS GROUPS have said that the six-month custodial sentence handed down to a sex offender yesterday raises questions about the fairness of the criminal justice system.Businessman Anthony Lyons had five-and-a-half years of his six-year sentence suspended by Justice Desmond Hogan after being found guilty of sexually attacking a woman near Griffith Avenue in Dublin two years ago.The judge also ordered the 51-year-old to pay €75,000 in compensation to the victim.Speaking to Joe Duffy on Liveline after court proceedings, the victim’s aunt Susan said her niece was “so upset” in court. She explained that the idea of compensation in lieu of a harsher sentence had been rejected and that the family were “horrified” by the outcome.“We thought he was going to prison for six years,” she said. “She doesn’t want money. She never did.”Dublin Rape Crisis Centre chief executive Ellen O’Malley-Dunlop had a mixed reaction to the case, which her organisation was not directly involved with.“I would call the sentence unusual,” she said in an interview with TheJournal.ie today. “The six years is not lenient – it is indicative of the seriousness of the crime. But getting him to pay the compensation and suspend the jail time questions the fairness of the system because a resourced person can avoid a custodial sentence by the provision of a large sum of money.”

Property developer Thomas McFeely has avoided a prison term after successfully overturning a contempt of court judgment.

Mr McFeely - an ex-billionaire who was yesterday declared bankrupt in Dublin - has successfully appealed a judgment that he broke court orders, and avoided a three-month sentence and a €1 million fine.

The ruling was delivered in Supreme Court this morning.

Mr McFeely, who served 12 years in the Maze Prison for shooting an RUC officer in Derry, spent 53 days without food during the 1980 hunger strikes.

The latest case centres on Mr McFeely’s Priory Hall development in Donaghmede, north Dublin.

About 300 people were left homeless and had to be re-housed when they were evacuated from the complex last October amid warnings it was fire hazard.

The developer was ordered by the High Court in Dublin to carry out remedial works, but was sentenced and fined when he did not.

RAPE CRISIS GROUPS have said that the six-month custodial sentence handed down to a sex offender yesterday raises questions about the fairness of the criminal justice system.Businessman Anthony Lyons had five-and-a-half years of his six-year sentence suspended by Justice Desmond Hogan after being found guilty of sexually attacking a woman near Griffith Avenue in Dublin two years ago.The judge also ordered the 51-year-old to pay €75,000 in compensation to the victim.Speaking to Joe Duffy on Liveline after court proceedings, the victim’s aunt Susan said her niece was “so upset” in court. She explained that the idea of compensation in lieu of a harsher sentence had been rejected and that the family were “horrified” by the outcome.“We thought he was going to prison for six years,” she said. “She doesn’t want money. She never did.”Dublin Rape Crisis Centre chief executive Ellen O’Malley-Dunlop had a mixed reaction to the case, which her organisation was not directly involved with.“I would call the sentence unusual,” she said in an interview with TheJournal.ie today. “The six years is not lenient – it is indicative of the seriousness of the crime. But getting him to pay the compensation and suspend the jail time questions the fairness of the system because a resourced person can avoid a custodial sentence by the provision of a large sum of money.”

Six years for sexual assault/rape is lenient. 15 years would be more appropriate. 6 months is just shameful.

It all boils down to money. State does not want to pay for perps to get proper punishment. Anybody who frauds the state of money. 5 to 20 years. Anybody who costs the state, suspended sentence.

I wished these judges worked in retail, with the discounts they give the economy who be on its feet in no time.

A CIRCUIT Court judge has been fined €600 after he pleaded guilty to failing to comply with a request by a garda to use a breathalyser in Connemara last year.

The Courts Service has confirmed the fine was imposed on Judge James O’Donohue (54) under section 2 of the Road Traffic Act at Clifden District Court last Thursday.

Judge O’Donohue,with an address in Dublin 3, had failed to comply with a request for a breath specimen made by Garda Dean Landers on August 19th, 2011, at Ballyconneely, Clifden, Co Galway.

He was driving a car registered in 2009 at the time.

He was asked for the specimen under section 12 (2) of the 1994 Road Traffic Act, as substituted by section 2 of the 2003 Road Traffic Act and by section 2 of the 2011 Road Traffic Act.

The case came up at Clifden District Court on May 24th and was listed again for mention on Thursday of this week. There were no reporters in court when the case was heard. Judge O’Donohue pleaded guilty and the fine was imposed.

The relevant section of the legislation does not refer to disqualification as a penalty.

A District Court judge claimed she was not guilty today when she was charged by fraud squad detectives with false accounting and theft.

Judge Heather Perrin (60) was appointed to the Dublin District Court bench in February 2009 after practising as a solicitor for 26 years.

Before she was made a judge, she ran a law firm at Fairview Strand, in Dublin 3.

This afternoon, Judge Perrin, who has an address at Lambay Court, Malahide, Dublin, was arrested by detectives from the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation.

She was brought before Judge Denis McLoughlin at Dublin District Court and faced two charges under the Theft and Fraud Offences Act.

The first charge states she allegedly stole €4,416 from Gareth Gilroy, between May 1st, 2006 and July 31st 2007.

The second charge alleges that between May 25th, 2004 until February 2nd, 2009, at a location in Dublin, she dishonestly - to make a gain for herself and to cause a loss to another - made use of an account or document which to her knowledge was or could have been misleading, false or deceptive

A District Court judge claimed she was not guilty today when she was charged by fraud squad detectives with false accounting and theft.

Judge Heather Perrin (60) was appointed to the Dublin District Court bench in February 2009 after practising as a solicitor for 26 years.

Before she was made a judge, she ran a law firm at Fairview Strand, in Dublin 3.

This afternoon, Judge Perrin, who has an address at Lambay Court, Malahide, Dublin, was arrested by detectives from the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation.

She was brought before Judge Denis McLoughlin at Dublin District Court and faced two charges under the Theft and Fraud Offences Act.

The first charge states she allegedly stole €4,416 from Gareth Gilroy, between May 1st, 2006 and July 31st 2007.

The second charge alleges that between May 25th, 2004 until February 2nd, 2009, at a location in Dublin, she dishonestly - to make a gain for herself and to cause a loss to another - made use of an account or document which to her knowledge was or could have been misleading, false or deceptive

.

don't worry though I'd say she might get off......

Judges don't convict fellow Judges

I know what she's alleged to have done here, is it safe to post it or what?

A District Court judge claimed she was not guilty today when she was charged by fraud squad detectives with false accounting and theft.

Judge Heather Perrin (60) was appointed to the Dublin District Court bench in February 2009 after practising as a solicitor for 26 years.

Before she was made a judge, she ran a law firm at Fairview Strand, in Dublin 3.

This afternoon, Judge Perrin, who has an address at Lambay Court, Malahide, Dublin, was arrested by detectives from the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation.

She was brought before Judge Denis McLoughlin at Dublin District Court and faced two charges under the Theft and Fraud Offences Act.

The first charge states she allegedly stole €4,416 from Gareth Gilroy, between May 1st, 2006 and July 31st 2007.

The second charge alleges that between May 25th, 2004 until February 2nd, 2009, at a location in Dublin, she dishonestly - to make a gain for herself and to cause a loss to another - made use of an account or document which to her knowledge was or could have been misleading, false or deceptive

.

don't worry though I'd say she might get off......

Judges don't convict fellow Judges

I know what she's alleged to have done here, is it safe to post it or what?

based upon my knowledge of the legals system I say what harm can it do?

In May 2002, the Garda Síochána launched Operation Amethyst, a major investigation based on details received from Interpol in August 2001 of Irish credit card transactions made in 1999 to a child-pornography website in Texas.[5] The operation led to numerous arrests and convictions. Detectives executed a search warrant on Curtin's private residence, seized his computer and reported finding 273 child pornographic images on the hard disk. Curtin was charged in January 2003. Following delays due to the judge's ill-health, the trial took place in April 2004. At the trial, Curtin claimed that the search was illegal because it had taken place outside the limit of the 7-day warrant. The Gardaí claimed that the delay was due to Curtin's extended absence from his home and that when it took place at 2:20pm on 27 May 2002, it was still within the 7-day limit.[6][7] The trial judge ruled that the search was illegal. As a result the computer evidence found could not be used. Without that evidence Curtin was found not guilty, the judge declaring that the case was "crystal clear".[8]

They even found a way for him to keep his pension

Quote:

In November 2006, Judge Curtin resigned from the judiciary on health grounds, ending the investigation. This occurred days before he was to give evidence in private to the committee, and days after he had completed five years on the bench, the minimum sufficient to qualify for a pension.

Wouldn't surprise me, there are some serious slimeballs in the legal profession. My mother is an currently acting as an executor to a will and you wouldn't believe the shit that the deceased woman's solicitors got up to. Considerable amounts have just vanished.

THE HIGH Court has approved the payment of monthly living expenses of just over €30,000 to the five adult children of bankrupt businessman Seán Quinn and three of their spouses.

The court made orders granting the eight Quinn family members various sums in living expenses, ranging from €2,995 for Mr Quinn’s youngest daughter Brenda to €8,184 for Ciara Quinn and her husband Niall McPartland who are unemployed with two children and a third expected.

The expenses were approved as the accounts of family members have been frozen below €50 million as part of legal proceedings taken by the former Anglo Irish Bank, now Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, over the family’s international property empire on which €455 million is owed.

Family members outlined, in affidavits, money spent on groceries, entertainment, fuel, car parking, care of dogs and sandwiches from Subway, their counsel Brian O’Moore SC told the court.

The expenses were signed off to Brenda Quinn, an accounts assistant on an accounts salary of £20,000: €3,743 for Colette Quinn, a married mother of one working with a joinery firm in Co Derry, and €7,775 for Aoife Quinn and her husband, Stephen Kelly.

Wouldn't surprise me, there are some serious slimeballs in the legal profession. My mother is an currently acting as an executor to a will and you wouldn't believe the shit that the deceased woman's solicitors got up to. Considerable amounts have just vanished.

Wag is spot on here unfortunately. These unaccountable politically biased fat cats appear to believe that they are themselves above the law. That mayo judge made overtly bigoted comments about polish people on the record and her supposed explanation - that she was referring to a specific group of Polish people - was frankly laughable. Still, I expect little or no sanction, certainly not in terms of remuneration!

Property developer Thomas McFeely has avoided a prison term after successfully overturning a contempt of court judgment.

Mr McFeely - an ex-billionaire who was yesterday declared bankrupt in Dublin - has successfully appealed a judgment that he broke court orders, and avoided a three-month sentence and a €1 million fine.

The ruling was delivered in Supreme Court this morning.

Mr McFeely, who served 12 years in the Maze Prison for shooting an RUC officer in Derry, spent 53 days without food during the 1980 hunger strikes.

The latest case centres on Mr McFeely’s Priory Hall development in Donaghmede, north Dublin.

About 300 people were left homeless and had to be re-housed when they were evacuated from the complex last October amid warnings it was fire hazard.

The developer was ordered by the High Court in Dublin to carry out remedial works, but was sentenced and fined when he did not.

That's quite a CV. From 12 years in prison, to billionaire, to bankrupt. Can't be many of those around.

Property developer Thomas McFeely has avoided a prison term after successfully overturning a contempt of court judgment.

Mr McFeely - an ex-billionaire who was yesterday declared bankrupt in Dublin - has successfully appealed a judgment that he broke court orders, and avoided a three-month sentence and a €1 million fine.

The ruling was delivered in Supreme Court this morning.

Mr McFeely, who served 12 years in the Maze Prison for shooting an RUC officer in Derry, spent 53 days without food during the 1980 hunger strikes.

The latest case centres on Mr McFeely’s Priory Hall development in Donaghmede, north Dublin.

About 300 people were left homeless and had to be re-housed when they were evacuated from the complex last October amid warnings it was fire hazard.

The developer was ordered by the High Court in Dublin to carry out remedial works, but was sentenced and fined when he did not.

That's quite a CV. From 12 years in prison, to billionaire, to bankrupt. Can't be many of those around.

Not forgetting allegedly former IRA member who went running to the British courts to declare his British credentials in order to avoid his Irish creditors.

Property developer Thomas McFeely has avoided a prison term after successfully overturning a contempt of court judgment.

Mr McFeely - an ex-billionaire who was yesterday declared bankrupt in Dublin - has successfully appealed a judgment that he broke court orders, and avoided a three-month sentence and a €1 million fine.

The ruling was delivered in Supreme Court this morning.

Mr McFeely, who served 12 years in the Maze Prison for shooting an RUC officer in Derry, spent 53 days without food during the 1980 hunger strikes.

The latest case centres on Mr McFeely’s Priory Hall development in Donaghmede, north Dublin.

About 300 people were left homeless and had to be re-housed when they were evacuated from the complex last October amid warnings it was fire hazard.

The developer was ordered by the High Court in Dublin to carry out remedial works, but was sentenced and fined when he did not.

That's quite a CV. From 12 years in prison, to billionaire, to bankrupt. Can't be many of those around.

Not forgetting allegedly former IRA member who went running to the British courts to declare his British credentials in order to avoid his Irish creditors.

In May 2002, the Garda Síochána launched Operation Amethyst, a major investigation based on details received from Interpol in August 2001 of Irish credit card transactions made in 1999 to a child-pornography website in Texas.[5] The operation led to numerous arrests and convictions. Detectives executed a search warrant on Curtin's private residence, seized his computer and reported finding 273 child pornographic images on the hard disk. Curtin was charged in January 2003. Following delays due to the judge's ill-health, the trial took place in April 2004. At the trial, Curtin claimed that the search was illegal because it had taken place outside the limit of the 7-day warrant. The Gardaí claimed that the delay was due to Curtin's extended absence from his home and that when it took place at 2:20pm on 27 May 2002, it was still within the 7-day limit.[6][7] The trial judge ruled that the search was illegal. As a result the computer evidence found could not be used. Without that evidence Curtin was found not guilty, the judge declaring that the case was "crystal clear".[8]

I'll bite on this one. The Gardai acted with an out of date warrant. They have to take responsibility for this one. Curtin's disgusting behaviour is an indictment of him as an individual rather than the judiciary as a whole. While you have valid points elsewhere, I don't feel that this one

In May 2002, the Garda Síochána launched Operation Amethyst, a major investigation based on details received from Interpol in August 2001 of Irish credit card transactions made in 1999 to a child-pornography website in Texas.[5] The operation led to numerous arrests and convictions. Detectives executed a search warrant on Curtin's private residence, seized his computer and reported finding 273 child pornographic images on the hard disk. Curtin was charged in January 2003. Following delays due to the judge's ill-health, the trial took place in April 2004. At the trial, Curtin claimed that the search was illegal because it had taken place outside the limit of the 7-day warrant. The Gardaí claimed that the delay was due to Curtin's extended absence from his home and that when it took place at 2:20pm on 27 May 2002, it was still within the 7-day limit.[6][7] The trial judge ruled that the search was illegal. As a result the computer evidence found could not be used. Without that evidence Curtin was found not guilty, the judge declaring that the case was "crystal clear".[8]

I'll bite on this one. The Gardai acted with an out of date warrant. They have to take responsibility for this one. Curtin's disgusting behaviour is an indictment of him as an individual rather than the judiciary as a whole. While you have valid points elsewhere, I don't feel that this one

If they know the time of the search down to the nearest 10 minutes, what time was the warrant issued?

In May 2002, the Garda Síochána launched Operation Amethyst, a major investigation based on details received from Interpol in August 2001 of Irish credit card transactions made in 1999 to a child-pornography website in Texas.[5] The operation led to numerous arrests and convictions. Detectives executed a search warrant on Curtin's private residence, seized his computer and reported finding 273 child pornographic images on the hard disk. Curtin was charged in January 2003. Following delays due to the judge's ill-health, the trial took place in April 2004. At the trial, Curtin claimed that the search was illegal because it had taken place outside the limit of the 7-day warrant. The Gardaí claimed that the delay was due to Curtin's extended absence from his home and that when it took place at 2:20pm on 27 May 2002, it was still within the 7-day limit.[6][7] The trial judge ruled that the search was illegal. As a result the computer evidence found could not be used. Without that evidence Curtin was found not guilty, the judge declaring that the case was "crystal clear".[8]

I'll bite on this one. The Gardai acted with an out of date warrant. They have to take responsibility for this one. Curtin's disgusting behaviour is an indictment of him as an individual rather than the judiciary as a whole. While you have valid points elsewhere, I don't feel that this one

If they know the time of the search down to the nearest 10 minutes, what time was the warrant issued?

That source is wikipedia. The search took place 8 days after the warrant was issued. There are different types of warrants and it can be confusing but if the Gardai did any bit of research into this particular warrant or as is more common got a new one issued, there would be no problem. Gardai are used to dealing with solicitors(especially in drink driving cases) picking holes in the smallest things to try to get their client off. Did the guards know that the warrant wasn't gonna hold up in court and were they trying to do a favour for an old buddy? I wonder...